Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the perception–reality gap regarding the influence of technological affordances on cybersexual harassment (CSH) between remote workers. While previous research has recognized the existence of gender stereotypes and discrimination in online spaces, little attention has been given to how technological affordances impact—or are perceived to impact—incidents of CSH. By employing a theoretical framework of technological affordances, this study reveals that users often perceive affordances differently from how they utilize them, indicating a misalignment between perception and behavior. Our analysis of interviews with 30 remote knowledge workers extends affordances theory by showing that affordances are not always applied in the ways they are perceived, and that power dynamics and structural inequalities outweigh technological affordances in shaping reporting behaviors. Addressing this perception–reality gap is crucial for developing interventions and policies that accurately reflect the realities of CSH experiences and promote a safe online work environment.

Keywords

Cybersexual harassment information and communication technologies perception–reality gap remote work technological affordances

Studies reveal that online environments harbor gender stereotypes and discrimination similar to face-to-face settings (Barak, 2005; Citron, 2009; Guadagno et al., 2011; Rodino, 1997). Moreover, certain aspects of computer-mediated communication can intensify damaging online behaviors, facilitating overt sexism, reducing accountability, and fostering disinhibition effects (McCormick and Leonard, 1996; Ritter, 2014). Notable incidents highlight the severity of online harassment faced by women and other marginalized groups. The GamerGate scandal, for instance, began as a controversy in online gaming culture, evolving into a significant episode involving sexism and harassment against women in the gaming community. The harassment of comedian Leslie Jones on Twitter, marked by racist and sexist abuse, further exemplifies the intensity of such online attacks. These events, alongside the impactful #MeToo Movement, underscore the urgency to persistently examine online harassment (Chess and Shaw, 2015; Dewey, 2014). With the rise of remote work arrangements during the Covid-19 pandemic, where information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a central role in people’s day-to-day activities, it is crucial to understand how the affordances, or action possibilities, of these tools shape incidents of online harassment and discrimination. As individuals increasingly rely on digital platforms—including mobile devices such as laptops and smartphones as well as a mix of workplace and personal technologies (email, chat applications, enterprise social media [ESM] and personal social media platforms)—for work, social interaction, and entertainment, the potential for perpetuating harmful behavior in these virtual spaces becomes more pronounced.

Affordances scholarship has been characterized by debates over the nature of affordances (Evans et al., 2017; McGrenere and Ho, 2000; Rice et al., 2017), but it has generally assumed that affordances will be applied in the way that they are perceived by actors. The present research utilizes the theoretical framework of technological affordances (Gibson, 1979; Leonardi and Treem, 2020; Treem and Leonardi, 2013) to scrutinize the relationship between perceived affordances of technology and the reality of behavior in relation to cybersexual harassment (CSH) in remote work environments. Moreover, our framework draws on the concept of imagined affordances (Darling-Wolf, 2021; Nagy and Neff, 2015) which highlights the interplay between users’ cultural and social contexts and their interactions with technology. By applying these concepts to the study of CSH, our research aims to uncover the underlying social and organizational factors that influence these perceptions and their alignment—or lack thereof—with actual behavior. Our analysis of interviews with 30 remote knowledge workers reveals a perception–reality gap, in which users often perceive affordances differently than how they use them, suggesting that users’ perceptions do not always align with their own behavior. While aspects such as visibility and persistence might be perceived as deterrents to sexual harassment, our data reveal that these perceived affordances encourage workers to discount the existence of such behaviors in the workplace while having no impact on their reporting behavior. Bridging this gap can help organizations implement appropriate policies, interventions, and training programs that align with the reality of CSH experiences and promote a safe and respectful online work environment. This study contributes to the literature by highlighting the need to address the perception–reality gap of technological affordances on incidents of CSH.

The prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace

As defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2022), sexual harassment is characterized by unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Early scholarship has categorized it into three increasingly severe dimensions: gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion (Fitzgerald et al., 1995, 1988). Gender harassment, the lowest dimension of severity, includes behaviors such as sexist remarks and misogynistic or sexual jokes. Unwanted sexual attention includes moderate behaviors, such as inappropriate sexual advances from a coworker, uncomfortable touching, and persistent requests for dates. The highest severity dimension is sexual coercion, which encompasses coercion of sexual activity by threat of punishment or promise of reward such as career advancement, also referred to as “quid pro quo.”

The ever-changing digital landscape has led researchers to wonder whether and how face-to-face sexual harassment behaviors translate to online behaviors. Researchers characterize CSH as encompassing a spectrum of sexually explicit or offensive content, conveyed through digital channels (Reed et al., 2019). Existing studies, such as those by Chang et al. (2016) indicate that certain CSH scenarios, particularly receiving unwanted sexual messages or images and the non-consensual sharing of such content, are prevalent but underreported. Some other examples of CSH include, but are not limited to, cyberbullying (i.e. sending threats and/or hurtful messages online), cyberstalking (i.e. stalking online profiles), sending unwanted pornography through computer-mediated channels, hacking (i.e. logging into online profiles without permission and posting or sending unauthorized content), morphing/editing photos (i.e. obscenely doctoring images), and direct sexual harassment via email or chat platforms (Halder and Jaishankar, 2011). These mediated behaviors can also be categorized using Fitzgerald et al.’s (1995) sexual harassment severity dimensions (i.e. gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion).

The complexity of addressing CSH in remote work settings is further compounded by intersecting factors. These include electronic privacy violations and the dynamics of workplace interactions mediated through social media technologies. For example, the increased use of these technologies for professional communication has led to a blurring of personal and professional boundaries (e.g. Ferguson et al., 2019; Mazmanian et al., 2013; Waizenegger et al., 2023). As a result, workplace romances, when communicated or conducted through social media platforms, can potentially escalate into instances of sexual harassment. This escalation is partly due to the informal and often public nature of social media communication, which can complicate and exacerbate workplace relationships (Mainiero and Jones, 2013).

The rise of cybersexual harassment in remote work

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the normalization of remote work, leading many employees to adapt to working from their homes. This transition, however, did not eliminate workplace harassment; instead, it introduced new dynamics to this persistent problem. As Tenório and Bjørn (2019) emphasize, harassment in the digital workplace transcends physical office boundaries, infiltrating personal spaces. Chat technology, a staple in remote work arrangements, has become a double-edged sword: a platform for harassment but also a tool for documenting and combating such abuses.

While cyberbullying has been well-documented in organizational contexts, affecting technology-reliant professionals such as academic scholars and doctor trainees (Farley et al., 2015; Gosse et al., 2021), it differs from CSH in several key aspects. Cyberbullying can encompass a wide range of targets and perpetrators, including interactions outside organizational boundaries. In contrast, CSH is distinct in its focus on sexual harassment occurring within the context of organizational relationships and stakeholders. This form of harassment, which disproportionately affects individuals with marginalized identities such as women, BIPOC, and LGBTQ + individuals (Gosse et al., 2021; Herry and Mulvey, 2023), results in outcomes similar to cyberbullying, such as mental health challenges, lowered job satisfaction, and diminished self-esteem. Between 2018 and 2021, over 27,291 sexual harassment charges were filed in the United States during a time when many knowledge workers were working remotely (Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, 2022; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022). High-profile cases of CSH include Jeffrey Toobin’s suspension and Zoom-bombing targeting Sarah Palin (Lapin and Coleman, 2020; Zilber, 2022). Inappropriate behavior during virtual calls or meetings was found to be the most common form of CSH during COVID-19’s first year (Ahuja and Padhy, 2021). Yet, despite these documented incidents, many cases of CSH, both in general and those specifically intensified during the pandemic, often go unreported. This underreporting is largely attributed to a variety of factors embedded in organizational hierarchies (Behtoui et al., 2017; Wang and Hsieh, 2013). In addition, victims of sexual harassment often fear retaliation, negative consequences for their careers, or disbelief and lack of support from others (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008; De Maria, 2008; Wilkinson et al., 2018). Power differentials between the perpetrator and the victim, as well as limited opportunities to challenge the status quo, contribute to underreporting (Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2018). Furthermore, the reliance on less visible or indirect forms of confrontation in CSH incidents can make it more challenging for victims to recognize and report the harassment (Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2018).

Technological affordances and perpetration of CSH

Scholars across disciplines such as communication, management, and information science are increasingly taking an affordances approach to explain the unique ways in which actors perceive and utilize technology to communicate across their organizations. The concept of affordances was originally defined by Gibson (1979), who refers to an affordance as an action possibility of an object in the natural environment. Since Gibson’s original work in ecological psychology, communication technology scholars have increasingly adapted this framework to explain the user–technology relationship (Evans et al., 2017; McGrenere and Ho, 2000; Norman, 1988; Rice et al., 2017). The affordances perspective, heavily utilized in workplace technology use literature, elucidates how technologies such as enterprise social media shape organizational processes like knowledge sharing, self-presentation, and participation (Gibbs et al., 2015; Leonardi and Treem, 2012). An affordance-based approach has been adopted by scholars of communication technology more broadly as a more nuanced and flexible way of theorizing the impacts of communication technologies than channel effects theories, due to the fact that specific channel features and user perceptions about them evolve over time and across contexts (Fox and McEwan, 2017).

Conceptualization of affordances has been complicated due to inconsistencies in definition as well as debates among scholars about the nature of affordances (Evans et al., 2017; Rice et al., 2017). One area of contention is whether affordances are real or perceived; that is, whether affordances exist independently of the actor’s perceptions as properties of the object, artifact, or environment, or depend on the actor’s perceptions and goals. For Gibson (1979), affordances exist independently of an actor’s perception and experiences and do not change when the actor’s needs or goals change. Extending this perspective to human–computer interaction research, Norman (1988) situated affordances as inherent in the design of an object or technology, although he acknowledged that they may or may not be perceived by users (with usability being higher when they are perceived; McGrenere and Ho, 2000). Other perspectives acknowledge that affordances emerge through direct interaction as users experiment and adapt technologies for their own purposes (Gaver, 1991; Leonardi, 2011). Nagy and Neff (2015) acknowledge that affordances are based on user perceptions, regardless of whether they were intended by designers. They present the notion of “imagined affordances” in an attempt to provide greater clarity to the term by defining affordances to include “properties of technologies that are ‘imagined’ by users, by their fears, their expectations, and their uses, as well as by those of the designers” (p. 4). Furthermore, in exploring the social dimensions of technological affordances, Costa (2018) provides a critical ethnographic perspective, emphasizing how users’ interactions with social media are deeply embedded within their cultural and social contexts. Darling-Wolf (2021) further explicates the concept of imagined affordances, where the perceived possibilities of digital media are heavily influenced by local cultural norms and social dynamics. These foundational insights set the stage for our investigation into how such affordances influence CSH in remote work environments.

Although communication perspectives on technological affordances and their nature vary, they are united by a relational view of affordances, which regards them as combining material features of the technology with the subjective goals and perceptions of its users. As Treem and Leonardi (2013) write, affordances are “constituted in relationships between people and the materiality of the things with which they come in contact” (p. 146). This perspective centers on how users perceive the features of the ICTs with which they engage and treat affordances as inherent or “built-in” to the technology. This implies that a particular role of an affordance depends on whether and how the actor perceives the affordance, and thus how the actor applies it (Rice et al., 2017). One thing that prior literature has assumed but has not questioned, though, is whether an actor will necessarily apply affordances in the same way they perceive them. Most of the discrepancies identified in the literature (e.g. Nagy and Neff, 2015) are between “users’ perceptions, attitudes, and expectations; between the materiality and functionality of technologies; and between the intentions and perceptions of the designer” (p. 1)—rather than between users’ perceptions and their own behavior. We draw upon this framework and argue that many users are likely able to perceive the affordances of the ICTs they utilize to communicate with coworkers, and but that it remains unclear how this will influence their decisions on whether and how to take action in various contexts.

While technological affordances of ESM such as visibility are often linked with positive communicative practices such as knowledge sharing (see Brzozowski et al., 2009; Gibbs et al., 2015; Leonardi and Treem, 2012) or social capital (Ellison and Vitak, 2015), the dual nature of technological affordances is clear: while they can foster informative, pro-social, and organizationally beneficial communication behaviors, they can also be used for harmful and anti-social purposes. Research on cyber behavior offers ample evidence of this duality. For example, research conducted by Durkin et al. (2006), Fox and Moreland (2015), and Quinn and Forsyth (2013) reveals how the Internet has led to an increase in sexually deviant behaviors and marginalized pathological communities. By fostering diverse subcultures, the Internet has inadvertently created spaces where extreme behaviors are not only possible but can also thrive under digital anonymity. In the same vein, younger populations are not immune to the dark side of these technological affordances. As Daniel (2005) found, middle and high school students who spend more time online report more deviance, a finding that underscores the pressing need for proper supervision and control of online activities for this vulnerable group.

Because of these findings, we argue that it is likely that frequent ICT users clearly perceive the affordances available to them and will strategically utilize them to engage in various behaviors surrounding both the perpetration and the victimhood of CSH incidents. For example, anonymity has been identified as one feature of the online environment that may explain why individuals may be more likely to engage in harassment (Ritter, 2014), and it may lead to an affordance of invisibility. Perpetrators of CSH might intentionally select online communication tools and environments for deviant communication behaviors, as they perceive fewer potential consequences (Quinn and Forsyth, 2013).

Furthermore, in the context of organizational life, research suggests that remote workers using ICTs for distributed work have developed various strategic responses to tensions that arise from technological affordances. For example, distributed workers consciously and strategically manage tensions between the compulsion to be constantly connected, visible, and accessible to others online and their desire to sometimes be invisible or inaccessible to others online by engaging in disconnection and dissimulation behaviors (Gibbs et al., 2013; Leonardi et al., 2010). These tactical solutions, which emerge from the process of identifying technological capabilities and making subsequent behavioral choices, demonstrate that remote workers are conscious of how these capabilities may facilitate unwanted interactions. Consequently, they make mindful decisions on how to wield them to manage workplace communication via specific channels. This behavior also highlights the impact of recent remote work trends that involve greater use of personal technologies and devices.

This further emphasizes how ICTs offer a paradox of increased visibility and invisibility, simultaneously. By mastering these capabilities, remote workers are finding ways to navigate these complexities and tensions, thereby influencing the dynamics of communication in remote working environments. If this ability to manage affordances allows remote workers to facilitate or constrain communication with other organizational members, could various elements of CSH behaviors be manipulated through these affordances as well? Therefore, we pose our first research question:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do remote workers perceive that technological affordances of ICTs are utilized to perpetrate CSH and how does this influence their attitudes toward CSH?

Technological affordances and reporting of CSH

Prior research suggests that underreporting of sexual harassment in organizations continues to be pervasive, and that it is perpetuated by systemic issues including fear of retaliation, limited opportunities for dissent, power differentials, legal mechanisms, and reliance on less visible or indirect forms of confrontation. Scarduzio et al. (2021) examined reasons employees did or did not report online sexual harassment, and found that victims reported due to emotional discomfort, social support and encouragement, feeling fed up with the harassment, feeling afraid or unsafe in the work environment, and job performance being affected by the harassment. However, only one-third of their sample reported their online sexual harassment. Many victims of workplace sexual harassment often do not report incidents due to downplaying the severity of the harassment, wanting to handle the issue independently, and fear of workplace consequences, such as retaliation, disbelief, or career impact (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008; De Maria, 2008; Scarduzio et al., 2021; Wilkinson et al., 2018). Power differentials and limited avenues to challenge the status quo also contribute greatly to this observed underreporting (Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2017). Malvini Redden and Scarduzio (2024) found that survivors of sexual harassment felt disempowered and silenced by reporting processes, leading to demoralization. In the workplace, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) have also been noted to silence complaints, thus perpetuating misconduct (Barmes, 2022).

Furthermore, the surge in remote work has led to an apparent increase in misconduct online due to the absence of witnesses and informality of online communication, exacerbated by pandemic stress (Fessler, 2021). Remote work exposes aspects of identity employees might prefer to keep private, creating vulnerability and reducing control (Fessler, 2021). Moreover, the blurred boundaries between work and home in a remote work setup may discourage CSH reporting due to an erosion of formal professional norms and a consequent rise in informality that can normalize inappropriate behaviors (Ahuja and Padhy, 2021). Scarduzio et al. (2019) found that employees grappled with whether sexual harassment occurring on social networking sites, such as Facebook, should fall under the responsibility of employers. Some participants said that employers should be accountable since their employees are involved, while others believed that what happens on social networking sites is private and not a concern of the employers. In addition, the intertwining of personal and professional spaces can make victims feel vulnerable or exposed, creating a barrier to reporting such instances. However, ICTs’ visibility and persistence may encourage more reporting, making CSH incidents and policies more apparent (Ahuja and Padhy, 2021). This leads to our second research question:

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do perceived technological affordances impact reporting behavior of CSH among employees?

Methods

To explore the evolving landscape of workplace CSH, we used an inductive approach and interviewed remote knowledge workers. This method helped us understand their perceptions of technological affordances, how these affordances enable or constrain CSH, and the resultant decision-making. Interviews were conducted during the first and second year of the Covid-19 pandemic when most office jobs had transitioned to remote work.

Data collection

To address our research questions, we recruited 30 participants for one-on-one interviews via Zoom. While we initially utilized our personal social networks for recruitment, to maintain objectivity and minimize potential biases, these interviews were conducted by the researcher who was less closely acquainted with each respective participant. Furthermore, to ensure a diverse sample, our recruitment efforts were significantly expanded through social media platforms and snowball sampling (participant referrals). This approach allowed us to reach a broader demographic and professional spectrum, as reflected in the diverse age range, gender distribution, and industry sectors of our participants. Our eligibility criteria included being 18 or older, working remotely for at least 75% of regularly scheduled work hours, and using ICTs daily for work-related communication. 60% of our sample identified as female (n = 18) and 40% identified as male (n = 12). Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 63 years old (M = 33.4 years). Much of our sample identified as white (56.67%), followed by Asian (16.67%), Latinx (16.67%), mixed race (6.67%), and Indian (3.33%). Participants represented a total of 16 different industry sectors, including education, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, high-tech, research, and financial services. They consisted of a mix of lower level employees, middle and top managers (See Table 1). Participants did not have to have firsthand experiences with CSH to participate; however, 36.67% (n = 11) of our participants had personally experienced CSH and 73.33% (n = 22) had either experienced or witnessed CSH or face-to-face sexual harassment. Participants most frequently referenced using digital platforms such as email, chat applications, like those housed in Microsoft Teams, ESM such as Slack, and personal social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter for work-related communication and interactions.

Table 1.

Participant demographics and occupational background.

Participant ID	Sex	Age	Industry	Role
1	Male	24	Lumber	Wildlife Technician
2	Male	56	High-Tech	CEO
3	Female	63	High-Tech	Regional Sales Manager
4	Female	20	Communications	Social Media Coordinator
5	Female	25	Insurance	Insurance Specialist
6	Female	20	Fitness	Climbing Instructor
7	Male	55	Water and Waste	Manager
8	Female	53	Insurance	Manager
9	Female	25	Healthcare	Financial Counselor
10	Female	26	Healthcare	Manager
11	Female	25	Manufacturing	Manager
12	Female	25	Research	Senior Program Assistant
13	Female	28	Higher Education	Recruitment Lead
14	Female	61	K-12 Education	Admin. Support Coordinator
15	Female	31	Higher Education	Grant Coordinator
16	Female	28	Higher Education	Grant Analyst
17	Male	28	High-Tech	Manager
18	Female	25	Entertainment	Attorney
19	Female	28	Financial Services	Retirement Planning
20	Female	55	High-Tech	HR Administrator
21	Female	53	Higher Education	Graduate Coordinator
22	Female	27	Healthcare	Clinical Researcher
23	Male	28	Financial Services	Loan Agent
24	Male	27	Healthcare	Manager
25	Male	33	Financial Services	Loan Agent
26	Male	26	Defense	Engineer
27	Male	25	Healthcare	Communications Manager
28	Male	25	Nonprofit	Administrative Manager
29	Male	24	Pharmaceuticals	Biochemist
30	Male	28	Higher Education	Graduate Teaching Assistant

Participants received digital consent forms, agreeing to take part in a semi-structured (Kvale, 1996) Zoom interview about remote work and CSH and were compensated $10 upon completion. Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes and were audio recorded using Zoom and later transcribed verbatim and de-identified by trained research assistants. Completed transcripts, which produced 533 pages of double-spaced data, were uploaded to Atlas.ti for analysis.

As new information emerged, we generated three iterations of the interview protocol. The initial set of interviews focused broadly on definitions of CSH among remote workers. The questions were designed to explore general perceptions and experiences without leading the participants. As we analyzed the data from the first iteration, certain themes and nuances began to emerge, particularly regarding the role of technology in facilitating or mitigating CSH. This led us to modify our interview questions to probe more deeply into the technological aspects, such as specific ICTs used and their perceived impact on harassment dynamics. In the final iteration, we incorporated insights gained from the first two rounds to focus on the strategic responses of remote workers to CSH. This included questions about reporting mechanisms, support systems, and personal coping strategies. This iteration was crucial in understanding not just the occurrence of CSH, but also how individuals navigate these challenges.

To maintain consistency across the three iterations and a roughly equivalent set of data points across participants, we asked all participants the same demographic questions, to define CSH, compare CSH and face-to-face sexual harassment, and to discuss how they perceived technology to affect sexual harassment. In addition, across all iterations, our final question asked participants to share any of their own experiences of CSH. The first iteration focused on identifying and understanding perceptions of various behaviors as CSH. We included scenarios based on established cases of CSH, prompting participants to reflect on and categorize these behaviors. This phase was crucial in establishing a baseline understanding of CSH from the participants’ perspective. The second iteration aimed to explore the technological context of CSH. We delved into the specific platforms and communication tools used in remote work settings, examining how these technologies might facilitate or mitigate harassment. This iteration provided insights into the role of technology in the dynamics of CSH. The final iteration concentrated on the interpersonal dynamics and boundary management within remote work environments. Questions in this phase probed into the interactions between coworkers on both professional and personal levels, particularly in the context of social media use. This helped us understand how boundaries are maintained or blurred in remote workspaces and how this impacts experiences of CSH.

Data analysis

In our study, we employed grounded theory methodology, which involves the development of theory through the systematic gathering and analysis of data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Employing a constant comparison approach, our data coding process was conducted in three stages: open, axial, and selective coding, as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Tracy (2019). This process involved a team of seven trained undergraduate research assistants, working alongside the two lead researchers. Over a period of 5 weeks, we engaged in open coding, identifying and labeling emerging themes within the data. These coding sessions were collaborative, with the team meeting weekly to discuss and review the themes to ensure reliability and consistency in our interpretation. During the axial coding phase, we connected these themes to subcategories, focusing particularly on how participants were aware of and interacted with technological affordances (See Figure 1). This step was crucial in organizing the data more systematically and understanding the broader patterns of participant responses. In the final stage, selective coding, we integrated and refined these categories to construct a coherent narrative about the impact of technological affordances on CSH behaviors. This selective coding was instrumental in revealing the nuanced ways in which affordances influenced CSH, as well as how remote workers perceived and responded to these influences strategically. The iterative nature of this coding process, combined with the diverse perspectives of our mixed-gender coding team, enriched our analysis and deepened our understanding of how ICTs are comprehended and employed by remote workers within the context of CSH.

Figure 1.

Data structure.

Findings

The role of affordances

In addressing our research questions, we found that participants were notably aware of two affordances: visibility, which refers to the possibility of making information and behavior visible or invisible to others through ICTs, and persistence, which refers to the possibility of messages being recordable, pervasive, or permanent (Treem and Leonardi, 2013). We found that visibility was implicated more in the perpetration of CSH, whereas persistence was more related to reporting behavior. These affordances serve as the basis for analyzing the relationship between perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in the context of CSH. Interestingly, we found that despite their awareness of these affordances, participants’ imagined uses differed from actual occurrences which have been demonstrated in public cases of CSH, and how they reported their own projected behaviors. We call this disconnect between participants’ own perceptions and behaviors the perception–reality gap (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Sample quotes—underreporting by women.

Participant ID	Quote
3Female, 63, Manager	“I don’t think I would say anything. I would handle it myself. [. . .] I—I don’t know maybe I would say something to my boss, but only if it persisted.”
8Female, 53, Manager	“I don’t know. I’m contemplating because if it’s in writing it’s really easy to report because you got it, it’s right here, it’s in writing. But it’s probably easier to maybe blow up. I don’t know. So, I don’t . . . Can I say I don’t know?”
10Female, 26, Manager	“No, it’s not very severe. It would be offensive if I was on the receiving end of it, but I wouldn’t report it probably.”
13Female, 28, Lower Level	“It all is going to depend on the person on the receiving end. So that has happened to me I didn’t—like yes it was a type of harassment, but it stopped. You know what I mean so I feel like if it would’ve continued, I would’ve been like what the hell and I would’ve said something about it but the fact that it stopped at the very beginning made me not be inclined to do anything else about it.”
16Female, 28, Lower Level	“I don’t know if that fear of being ostracized or seen differently or like you know, I don’t know if that’s going to, if that decreases [the likelihood of reporting] just because it’s happening in a cyber way, I feel like it, I mean I would assume it would mean more people would come forward and report but at the same time those repercussions of coming forward are still very real regardless.”
21Female, 53, Lower Level	“I feel kind of sad, but I think that I have to admit that I’m more leaning towards, I would try to take care of it on my own, and I don’t think I would necessarily use the resources that I tell other people to use. It was much easier for me to tell someone else then actually apply it to myself.”

Visibility and the perpetration of CSH

In addressing RQ1 about how perceptions of technological affordances are related to the perpetration of CSH, we found that participants exhibited a clear awareness of the visibility provided by their work technologies. Participants described pre-meditated workarounds to avoid penalties when engaging in CSH on workplace technology, such as choosing media with low organizational visibility. In the interview protocol’s early iteration, we introduced examples from Ritter’s (2014) CSH scale to help clarify the concept for participants. This included asking whether viewing pornography on a work computer at home would be considered sexual harassment. Participant 2, (male, 56 years old, high-tech CEO), responded, “[. . .] definitely sexual harassment just because someone can see whatever you see.” He pointed out that despite the solitude of remote work or the perceived privacy of one’s home, such an action could still be visible to others within the organization, due to IT departments’ ability to access work computers remotely.

Similarly, when asked the same question, Participant 19 (female, 28 years old, lower level retirement financial planner) expanded on this false sense of aloneness involved in remote work, and despite this, her understanding and awareness of visibility.

Even though I’m working from home, and I could do whatever I want on my computer and no one can see me, if IT decided to mirror my desktop . . . they would see [the pornography], and then I’d be harassing that person.

Participant 19’s response also signifies an acute awareness of the visibility of work. She illustrates her understanding that, although remote work might instill a sense of privacy and isolation, actions taken on work devices are not inherently private. Her assertion that viewing explicit content could inadvertently result in the harassment of IT personnel who may need to access her desktop underlines a keen perception of how technology can mediate and transform behaviors and their implications in a remote work environment.

While participants acknowledged the visibility features inherent to workplace technology in remote work settings, they also discussed hypothetical situations where an offender would exploit specific channels to conduct CSH in a more concealed manner. These scenarios often involved the deliberate choice of communication platforms with lower organizational visibility, such as personal social media networks. Participant 23 (male, 28 years old, lower-level loan agent) exemplifies this:

[CSH] is far more likely to happen in Instagram direct messages [or] text messages. There are ways to get someone’s phone number through the company, so I would assume that’s happening on personal devices as opposed to [company] devices.

Participants’ views, like those of Participant 23, reflect a perceived tendency of perpetrators to use less monitored platforms to evade organizational scrutiny. However, this should not lead us to assume that workplace technologies are free of CSH. Believing that harassment is most likely to occur on non-work platforms overlooks the potential for misuse of workplace technology for such misconduct.

To probe this further, we asked others about what types of technologies perpetrators might use to enact CSH. Participant 21 (female, 53 years old, lower level graduate coordinator) asserted that she did not believe that perpetrators would utilize workplace technologies:

These types of people are calculated, and they would not use work technology . . . That’s kind of stupid. It can be through [direct messages], LinkedIn, Twitter . . . I mean, there’s so many different ways that people can plan it and work isn’t necessarily [going to] find out.

Echoing this sentiment, Participant 20 (female, 55 years old, human resources administrator) discussed how the use of personal social media, where coworkers often interacted, made CSH easier for the perpetrator by making the behavior invisible to organizational members other than the intended victim:

When you’re at work you’re amongst other people, they can see what’s happening. They may be a witness to something going on and they can help report it. But when you’re in cyberworld, who else is going to see? It’s between you and the other person.

Relating to earlier ideas regarding the complexity presented by social media, participants described how they imagined social media gave perpetrators of CSH control over the visibility of their actions. One unintended downside of using personal devices and platforms was that the decreased visibility reduced the possibility of bystander behavior by colleagues at work. These findings suggest that remote workers are aware of the high visibility of workplace technology, which makes them imagine CSH to be less likely to occur on workplace technology, and more likely to occur on personal platforms and devices. However, the belief among remote workers that people will not use workplace technology for CSH, a belief contradicted by various reported cases of workplace CSH in the media, can leave these workers vulnerable (Lapin and Coleman, 2020; Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, 2022; Zilber, 2022).

Such an assumption might lead to a false sense of security within organizational spaces, potentially neglecting the importance of monitoring and regulating inappropriate behaviors on workplace platforms. Furthermore, it could lead to underreporting of CSH incidents that do occur on these platforms. Remote workers may wrongly believe that they are protected from CSH when using workplace technology, leading them to let their guard down at work. They may also fail to report any suspicious or inappropriate behavior that may occur on workplace platforms. Furthermore, the idea that workplace technology is less susceptible to CSH may also discourage organizations from implementing appropriate policies and procedures to prevent and respond to CSH incidents. This can further leave remote workers vulnerable and without a clear reporting process, which contributes to CSH going unreported.

Persistence and reporting of CSH

To address RQ2 we probed participants on their likelihood to report CSH. Most participants acknowledged that persistence of CSH behaviors provided more evidence for the incident and, in turn, allowed the victim to report it easily. Participant 8 (female, 53 years old, insurance manager) stated this idea simply by saying “if it’s in writing, it’s easy to report because you got it. It’s right here. It’s in writing.” Similarly, Participant 12 (female, 25 years old, lower-level senior program assistant) shared this sentiment and noted the degree to which a report was plausible when evidence could be produced:

There is kind of a paper trail that you can have and documentation . . . I think being able to have documentation is something that unfortunately is more palatable to a lot of people . . . than someone telling a memory or an experience.

The reference to “documentation” underscores the perceived importance of evidence in substantiating allegations of harassment. Furthermore, this participant notes that such documentation tends to be more “palatable” or convincing to many, compared to personal narratives or recollections of an incident.

In addition, Participant 14 (female, 61 years old, lower level administrative support coordinator) reiterated this idea and included the effects that sexual trauma may have on a victim’s willingness to report, but noted that the persistence afforded by ICTs may provide less invasive ways to report:

People are so shy or don’t want to say that something’s happened to them physically, like getting abused, or they’ve been stalked . . . But if there’s a picture of something that’s not appropriate, then you can say here you can deal with that.

This quote reflects the perception that ICTs allowed for nonverbal documentation that would speak for itself (such as a picture or other evidence), and that this would increase reporting of CSH as it provided an alternate means of reporting than requiring a reluctant victim to speak up. This perception that ICTs would serve to increase reporting of CSH was supported by many of our other participants who perceived that the persistence afforded by ICTs made incidents of CSH easier to report, more believable, and less invasive to come forward with.

However, despite the fact that participants clearly perceived the persistence of ICTs and its potential to promote reporting, we found that many of our female respondents were hesitant to report CSH themselves, as seen in the prior exemplar quotes. In many cases, the perceived efficacy of reporting and the anticipated consequences of reporting were two reasons provided for why some would downplay or choose not to report CSH despite the overwhelming persistence awareness demonstrated across the sample. Perceived efficacy in the voicing behavior literature refers to whether employees believe their feedback to the organization will have the intended effect (Bandura, 1994; Morrison, 2011, 2014). In the case of CSH reporting, the intended effect would typically be a form of punishment for the perpetrator and/or restitution for the victim of the incident. In addition, in past research, some commonly anticipated consequences of voicing critiques or casting accusations have included retaliation, having reduced work hours, or being assigned undesirable tasks (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008), in addition to interpersonal conflict with managers and other organizational members (Burris, 2012; Kassing, 1998).

As noted earlier, scholars studying workplace power dynamics have identified long-standing patterns in which marginalized and lower-level organizational members’ lack of power and voice, among other workplace inequalities, affect the way in which these employees engage in confrontation and reporting behaviors at work (Morrison et al., 2015; Prasad and Prasad, 1998). In line with these past findings, in our own findings we see that despite the persistent nature of CSH and the perceived ease of reporting it, junior and/or female employees were uncertain about reporting or simply elected not to report incidents of CSH because of real or perceived power and voice inequities. For example, Participant 5 (female, 25 years old, lower-level insurance specialist) clearly signaled her perceptions of organizational power distance as a junior employee, in the context of CSH:

[Cybersexual] harassment is mostly from supervisors and it’s more difficult to report because of that. If you try to report that [to] upper-level management, then there is a chance that they do not believe you because you are lower-level staff, and they have more trust in middle management.

Despite acknowledging the recordable evidence that was typically associated with CSH versus face-to-face sexual harassment, this employee did not feel efficacious in reporting an incident of CSH, especially if the harassment was being perpetrated by a supervisor or a more senior employee. Her perception was that because she was in a junior role, despite having evidence her report would be easily dismissed if it was contested by middle management. As a result, she stated that if she experienced CSH herself, she would be very unlikely to report it, citing a lack of voice and power as justification.

Beyond perceptions of low reporting efficacy, some participants gave clear examples from their own experiences as bystanders of sexual harassment cases within their own organizations which left them feeling like reporting CSH to their workplace was not helpful. For example, Participant 12 (female, 25 years old, lower level senior program assistant) described such an experience:

The way that I’ve seen [HR] handle things has been very dismissive. It’s been a lot of politics or moving people into different areas instead of addressing things and remedying power dynamics [. . .] I don’t think that if I were to report something that I would be satisfied with what would come of it.

Moreover, after taking a closer look, we found that this sentiment was not exclusive to young women. For example, Participant 21 (female, 53 years old, lower level graduate coordinator) also states she would not report CSH if it happened to her despite being highly aware of the reporting process and associated resources:

I feel kind of sad, but I think that I have to admit that I’m more leaning towards, I would try to take care of it on my own, and I don’t think I would necessarily use the resources that I tell other people to use. It was much easier for me to tell someone else then actually apply it to myself.

This lack of perceived efficacy in reporting, combined with concerns about potential consequences and the perceived ineffectiveness of organizational responses, contributes to the underreporting of CSH and sexual harassment in general. The quotes highlight how individuals’ decisions to report are shaped not only by the presence of evidence but also by their perceptions of their own agency within the organization’s power dynamics. These factors collectively create a perception–reality gap where evidence-based reporting may not necessarily lead to the desired outcomes due to broader systemic issues within the workplace.

Furthermore, anticipated consequences of reporting CSH led many participants to express a great deal of uncertainty about reporting an incident, despite its recordability. For example, Participant 16 (female, 28 years old, lower level grant analyst) mentioned this when she stated:

I don’t know if that fear of being ostracized or seen differently, if that decreases [the likelihood of reporting] just because it’s happening in a cyber way. I would assume it would mean more people would come forward and report but at the same time those repercussions of coming forward are still very real.

While it could be assumed that the persistence afforded by computer-mediated communication and the clear perception of this affordance by both perpetrators and victims would be enough to deter the process of CSH, this does not appear to be the case. Not only did affordance awareness (neither visibility nor persistence) not deter perpetrators from engaging in CSH, but it likewise did not empower victims to report despite having tangible evidence. As in face-to-face sexual harassment, power dynamics and inequalities continue to be key factors that transcend the action possibilities of technology. Even with concrete evidence of harassment, employees who lack power and voice—typically junior and female employees—were less likely to submit reports of CSH to their organizations due to low reporting efficacy and anticipated negative consequences at the interpersonal and organizational levels.

Importantly, these findings underscore the perception–reality gap in technological affordances around CSH: while they are perceived to be tools for reporting and combatting harassment, victims and bystanders are not acting on these perceptions and continue to be deterred from reporting due to the perceived ramifications of such visibility and persistence. This complexity, previously underexplored, adds a fresh perspective to our understanding of the role of ICT affordances in CSH incidents and calls for a more nuanced approach in tackling workplace CSH.

Discussion

The findings of this study shed light on the perception–reality gap regarding the influence of technological affordances on CSH in remote work environments. Participants were aware that workplace technologies allowed for the visibility and recordability of behaviors, which had the potential to aid in reporting CSH. Yet, more vulnerable employees were still hesitant to report CSH due to perceived power dynamics and a lack of voice within the organization. This is in line with prior literature that finds that sexual harassment is underreported (Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2017, 2021).

Overall, participants often underestimated the role of workplace technologies as platforms for CSH and believed that the visibility and potential monitoring associated with these technologies would deter inappropriate behavior. They even envisioned workarounds to make CSH behaviors highly visible to victims while remaining less visible or invisible to others in the organization, such as resorting to personal social media platforms. However, these beliefs contradicted the reality that CSH incidents do occur on workplace technologies and may have led them to downplay or minimize the extent of the problem. The existence of a perception–reality gap helps to extend affordances theory, which has generally assumed that actors will apply affordances in the same way they perceive them. Our results reveal that users often perceive affordances differently from how they ultimately utilize them, indicating a misalignment between perception and behavior. By bridging the perception–reality gap and addressing the underlying factors contributing to underreporting, organizations can create safer online work environments and effectively combat CSH.

Theoretical implications

This research has several theoretical implications that contribute to our understanding of CSH in remote work environments and the role of technological affordances. First, the study highlights the perception–reality gap in the utilization of technological affordances. While prior studies (e.g. Costa, 2018; Darling-Wolf, 2021; Nagy and Neff, 2015) have advanced our understanding of how the use and understanding of technological affordances may be shaped by social and cultural contexts, the present study contributes new insights into how these affordances function within the specific organizational contexts of remote work. For instance, our findings reveal a significant perception–reality gap in the application of technological affordances for combating CSH, such as increased visibility and persistence, which were frequently perceived to deter inappropriate behaviors through their potential for monitoring and recording interactions. Despite these theoretical capabilities, which were actively perceived by our participants, the interview findings reveal that these affordances may not effectively deter the perpetration of CSH nor encourage reporting of incidents in practice. Furthermore, our study goes beyond the regional, cultural, and social considerations typically emphasized in the literature by delving into the intricate dynamics of organizational power and structural inequalities. We found that power relations within the workplace have the potential to shape the perception and utilization of technological affordances. For example, despite the theoretical potential for digital tools to enhance visibility and persistence in remote settings, employees reported hesitating to utilize these tools due to fears of reprisal or professional backlash, especially when the harasser holds a position of authority and/or the victim hold a subordinate position. This focus on organizational context allows our study to provide a more detailed exploration of how specific internal dynamics inhibit the effective use of technological tools designed to mitigate CSH. By doing so, we extend the theoretical discussion of affordances to include the critical role of internal workplace factors, enriching the discourse on how digital interactions are mediated not just by cultural and social contexts but also by the very structures of the organizations within which these technologies are deployed.

The study further sheds light on the complexities of visibility and persistence as technological affordances in the context of CSH. Participants were aware of the visibility and recordability of behaviors facilitated by workplace technologies, yet they downplayed the role of these technologies as platforms for CSH. This finding challenges the assumption that technological affordances alone can act as a deterrent for inappropriate behavior or an incentive for reporting. This underscores the limitations of technological affordances in addressing complex social issues such as CSH and draws attention to broader social and structural factors that have a bigger impact on the perpetration and reporting of CSH.

To this end, the research emphasizes the importance of power dynamics and structural inequalities in shaping reporting behaviors and outcomes. More vulnerable employees—including both junior women and women in management positions—demonstrated a hesitancy to report CSH due to a perceived lack of power and voice within the organization. This finding aligns with previous research on power differentials and their impact on reporting behaviors (e.g. Barmes, 2022; Malvini Redden and Scarduzio, 2024; Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2019, 2021). Not only is it risky for vulnerable employees to name and identify abuses of power and challenge inequalities and hierarchies, but reporting formal complaints such as CSH is often complicated by the labyrinthine nature of the system (Ahmed, 2021). This suggests that theoretical frameworks should consider the nuanced interplay between visibility, persistence, power dynamics, and reporting behaviors and take a structural approach to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how affordances combine with broader institutional dynamics to shape CSH experiences and outcomes.

Finally, the research highlights the need for comprehensive measures to address CSH in digital workplaces. The perception–reality gap and the underreporting of CSH incidents indicate that current policies and interventions may not effectively address the unique challenges of remote work environments. Theoretical frameworks should guide the development of evidence-based interventions that empower victims, promote a culture of reporting, and address the power dynamics and structural inequalities that contribute to underreporting.

Overall, this research contributes to the theoretical understanding of CSH by examining the perception–reality gap in the utilization of technological affordances, emphasizing the role of power dynamics, and highlighting the need for comprehensive measures to address CSH in remote work environments. By incorporating these insights into theoretical frameworks, researchers can advance our understanding of CSH and inform the development of effective strategies to prevent and address this issue.

Pragmatic implications

The findings of this study offer several pragmatic implications that are vital for organizations, policymakers, workers, and managers in addressing CSH in remote work environments. For workers, it is crucial to provide education on the risks and consequences of CSH. In past research, employees have suggested employers should provide sexual harassment training, monitor employees’ social media accounts, encourage employees not to follow each other on social media, and have strict consequences for CSH (Scarduzio et al., 2019). Training programs should focus on raising awareness, understanding the potential impacts, and encouraging workers to recognize, report, and maintain professional boundaries in digital communications. Managers play a pivotal role in this ecosystem. They need to be equipped with the skills to recognize signs of CSH, respond supportively to victims, understand the underpinning power dynamics, and foster a culture of respect and inclusivity in digital workspaces. Scarduzio et al. (2021) found that social support is a driving factor for CSH reporting. Thus, managers should be cognizant of the limitations of remote work, and should be mindful to still schedule face time with their subordinates in order to develop trusting relationships that encourage disclosures of CSH.

At the organizational level, comprehensive policies specifically targeting CSH in digital workplaces are essential. These policies should include clear guidelines, confidential reporting mechanisms to empower victims and bystanders, and sensitivity to the power dynamics and structural inequalities that contribute to underreporting. Furthermore, technological interventions are necessary to detect and prevent CSH. This includes monitoring employee communications, automated reporting mechanisms, and fostering a culture of accountability. In addition, with the increasing prevalence of remote work, organizations should consider providing and mandating workplace devices for home use, thus reducing reliance on unmonitored personal technologies. Collectively, these steps can bridge the perception–reality gap, resulting in a workforce that is better informed and equipped to recognize, report, and prevent CSH incidents in remote work settings.

Limitations and future research

While our study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of technological affordances and their influence on CSH in remote work environments, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our research. Our predominantly white, heterosexual, US-based sample hindered our ability to examine the intersectionality of factors like race, gender, sexuality, culture, and their relationship with CSH (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008). In addition, we could not explore unique challenges marginalized groups might face. The study’s US-centric focus also overlooked cross-cultural differences in perceptions and experiences of CSH. Future research should diversify samples to better understand the impact of technological affordances on CSH among marginalized groups and across cultures.

Furthermore, our study focused on perceptions, not actual behaviors or motivations, which could have offered a more complete understanding of how technology affects CSH perpetration and reporting. Future research should use a mixed-methods approach to delve into perceptions, behaviors, and the use of digital whistleblower hotlines, which aim to increase prohibitive voicing (Mao and DeAndrea, 2019). Extant literature supports that when employees do plan to voice concerns or critiques of their organization, they have preferences over which media to utilize (Ean, 2010; Ruck and Welch, 2012). This suggests that they are aware of technological affordances and the related consequences of use. Examining existing whistleblowing platforms through the lens of affordance awareness may serve as a fruitful avenue for determining how to increase CSH reporting in the workplace.

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the perception–reality gap regarding the influence of technological affordances on CSH in remote work environments. The findings emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding of how individuals interpret and engage with technological affordances, as perceptions often differ from actual behaviors. Power dynamics and structural inequalities play a significant role in shaping reporting behaviors and outcomes, highlighting the importance of addressing these factors to empower victims and foster a safe reporting culture. The study underscores the complexities of visibility and persistence as technological affordances and calls for comprehensive measures that raise awareness, establish clear policies, and promote proactive monitoring and intervention strategies. By bridging the perception–reality gap, addressing power imbalances, and adopting evidence-based practices, organizations can create safer online work environments and effectively combat CSH in remote settings.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nitzan Navick

Author biographies

Nitzan Navick is a Doctoral Candidate and organizational communication researcher at the University of California,Santa Barbara with a strong focus on collaboration in remote/hybrid teams and organizations,virtual work,and human–machine communication. Her work also encompasses exploring the affordances of new technologies for strategic communication practices,workplace equality,business ethics,and gender issues in the workplace. She has presented her original research at national and international conferences such as the National and International Communication Associations,and the Academy of Management. Her work has been published in journals and influential handbooks from a variety of disciplines including Management Communication Quarterly,Information Communication & Society,Journal of Interactive Media in Education,The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Organizational Communication,Handbook on Virtual Work,and The Routledge Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication.

Allison P Mazur is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of California,Santa Barbara. Her research centers on communicating about interpersonal violence and trauma in close relationships.

Jennifer L Gibbs is a Professor of Communication at the University of California,Santa Barbara as well as Editor of Communication Research . Her research focuses on collaboration in global teams and other distributed work arrangements as well as the affordances of digital technologies for strategic communication practices. Her work has been published in leading journals from a variety of disciplines including Administrative Science Quarterly,American Behavioral Scientist,Communication Research,Computers in Human Behavior,Human Relations,The Information Society,Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,Journal of Social & Personal Relationships,Management Communication Quarterly,and Organization Science .

References

Ahmed

(2021) Complaint! Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ahuja

Padhy

(2021) The cyber avatar of sexual harassment at the workplace: media analysis of reports during COVID-19. Journal of Psychosexual Health 3(4): 322–331.

Bandura

(1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 71–81.

Barak

(2005) Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review 23(1): 77–92.

Barmes

(2022) Silencing at work: sexual harassment, workplace misconduct and NDAs. Industrial Law Journal 52(1): 68–106.

Behtoui

Boréus

Neergaard

, et al (2017) Speaking up, leaving, or keeping silent: racialized employees in the Swedish elderly care sector. Work, Employment and Society 31(6): 954–971.

Brzozowski

Sandholm

Hogg

(2009) Effects of feedback and peer pressure on contributions to enterprise social media. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group work (GROUP ’09), Sanibel Island, FL, 10–13 May, pp. 61–70. New York: ACM.

Burris

(2012) The risks and rewards of speaking up: managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal 55(4): 851–875.

Chang

Chiu

Chiang

(2014). Predictors of unwanted exposure to online pornography and online sexual solicitation of youth. Journal of Health Psychology 21(6): 1107–1118.

10.

Chess

Shaw

(2015) A conspiracy of fishes, or, how we learned to stop worrying about #GamerGate and embrace hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59(1): 208–220.

11.

Citron

(2009) Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender harassment. Michigan Law Review 108(3): 373–415.

12.

Cortina

Berdahl

(2008) Sexual harassment in organizations: a decade of research in review. In: Cooper

Barling

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior. London: Sage, pp. 469–497.

13.

Costa

(2018) Affordances-in-practice: an ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society 20(10): 3641–3656.

14.

Daniel

(2005) An exploration of middle and high school students’ perceptions of deviant behavior when using computers and the Internet. Journal of Technology Studies 31(2): 70–80.

15.

Darling-Wolf

(2021) In the city, they go “pit pit pit”: digital media’s affordances and imagined (dis)connections in a rural Japanese community. New Media & Society 23(7): 1863–1881.

16.

De Maria

(2008) Whistleblowers and organizational protesters: crossing imaginary borders. Current Sociology 56(6): 865–883.

17.

Dewey

(2014) The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read. The Washington Post, 14 October. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

18.

Durkin

Forsyth

Quinn

(2006) Pathological Internet communities: a new direction for sexual deviance research in a post modern era. Sociological Spectrum 26(6): 595–606.

19.

Ean

(2010) Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: exploring employees’ preference of effective employee communication channel. International Journal for the Advancement of Science & Arts 1(2): 38–48.

20.

Ellison

Vitak

(2015) Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In: Sundar

(ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 205–227.

21.

Evans

Pearce

Vitak

, et al (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22(1): 35–52.

22.

Farley

Coyne

Sprigg

, et al (2015) Exploring the impact of workplace cyberbullying on trainee doctors. Medical Education 49(4): 436–443.

23.

Ferguson

Ormiston

Wong

(2019) The effects of cohesion and structural position on the top management team boundary spanning–firm performance relationship. Group & Organization Management 44(6): 1010–1040.

24.

Fessler

(2021, June 8). Workplace harassment in the age of remote work. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/us/remote-workplace-harassment.html

25.

Fitzgerald

Gelfand

Drasgow

(1995) Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 17(4): 425–445.

26.

Fitzgerald

Shullman

Bailey

, et al (1988) The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32(2): 152–175.

27.

Fox

McEwan

(2017) Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: the perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs 84(3): 298–318.

28.

Fox

Moreland

(2015) The dark side of social networking sites: an exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior 45: 168–176.

29.

Gaver

(1991) Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds Robertson

Olson

), New Orleans, LA, 27 April–2 May, pp. 79–84. New York: ACM.

30.

Gibbs

Eisenberg

Rozaidi

, et al (2015) The “megapozitiv” role of enterprise social media in enabling cross-boundary communication in a distributed Russian organization. American Behavioral Scientist 59(1): 75–102.

31.

Gibbs

Rozaidi

Eisenberg

(2013) Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(1): 102–120.

32.

Gibson

(1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

33.

Gosse

Veletsianos

Hodson

, et al (2021) The hidden costs of connectivity: nature and effects of scholars’ online harassment. Learning Media and Technology 46(3): 264–280.

34.

Guadagno

Muscanell

Okdie

, et al (2011) Even in virtual environments women shop and men build: a social role perspective on Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1): 304–308.

35.

Halder

Jaishankar

(2011) Cyber gender harassment and secondary victimization: a comparative analysis of the United States, the UK, and India. Victims & Offenders 6(4): 386–398.

36.

Herry

Mulvey

(2023) Gender-based cyberbullying: understanding expected bystander behavior online. Journal of Social Issues 79: 1210–1230.

37.

Kassing

(1998) Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly 12(2): 183–229.

38.

Kvale

(1996) The 1,000-page question. Qualitative Inquiry 2(3): 275–284.

39.

Lapin

Coleman

(2020) The New Yorker fires Jeffrey Toobin after probe into Zoom masturbation scandal. The New York Post, 11 November. Available at: https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/the-new-yorker-fires-jeffrey-toobin-after-probe-into-zoom-masturbation-scandal/

40.

Leonardi

(2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35: 147–167.

41.

Leonardi

Treem

(2012) Knowledge management technology as a stage for strategic self-presentation: implications for knowledge sharing in organizations. Information and Organization 22(1): 37–59.

42.

Leonardi

Treem

(2020) Behavioral visibility: a new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies 41(12): 1601–1625.

43.

Leonardi

Treem

Jackson

(2010) The connectivity paradox: using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research 38(1): 85–105.

44.

Mainiero

Jones

(2013) Sexual harassment versus workplace romance: social media spillover and textual harassment in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives 27(3): 187–203.

45.

Malvini Redden

Scarduzio

(2024) Mysteries, battles, and games: exploring agency in metaphors about sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly 38: 117–146.

46.

Mao

DeAndrea

(2019) How anonymity and visibility affordances influence employees’ decisions about voicing workplace concerns. Management Communication Quarterly 33(2): 160–188.

47.

Mazmanian

Orlikowski

Yates

(2013) The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science 24(5): 1337–1357.

48.

McCormick

Leonard

(1996) Gender and sexuality in the cyberspace frontier. Women & Therapy 19(4): 109–119.

49.

McGrenere

(2000) Affordances: clarifying an evolving concept. In: Proceedings of graphics interface, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–17 May, pp. 179–186. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society.

50.

Morganson

Major

(2014) Exploring retaliation as a coping strategy in response to customer sexual harassment. Sex Roles 71(1): 83–94.

51.

Morrison

(2011) Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals 5(1): 373–412.

52.

Morrison

(2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1): 173–197.

53.

Morrison

See

Pan

(2015) An approach-inhibition model of employee silence: the joint effects of personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel Psychology 68(3): 547–580.

54.

Nagy

Neff

(2015) Imagined affordance: reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society 1(2): 2056305115603385.

55.

Norman

(1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.

56.

Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics (2022) Sexual harassment in our nation’s workplaces. Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment-our-nations-workplaces

57.

Prasad

(1998) Everyday struggles at the workplace: the nature and implications of routine resistance in contemporary organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 15(2): 225–257.

58.

Quinn

Forsyth

(2013) Red light district on blue screens: a typology for understanding the evolution of deviant communities on the internet. Deviant Behavior 34(7): 579–585.

59.

Reed

Salazar

Behar

, et al. (2019). Cyber sexual harassment: prevalence and association with substance use, poor mental health, and STI history among sexually active adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence 75: 53–62.

60.

Rice

Evans

Pearce

, et al (2017) Organizational media affordances: operationalization and associations with media use. Journal of Communication 67(1): 106–130.

61.

Ritter

(2014) Deviant behavior in computer-mediated communication: development and validation of a measure of cybersexual harassment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(2): 197–214.

62.

Rodino

(1997) Breaking out of binaries: reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(3): JCMC333.

63.

Ruck

Welch

(2012) Valuing internal communication; management and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review 38(2): 294–302.

64.

Scarduzio

Sheff

Smith

(2018) Coping and sexual harassment: how victims cope across multiple settings. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(2): 327–340.

65.

Scarduzio

Malvini Redden

Fletcher

, et al (2019) “There is a fine line between one’s personal life and professional one”: handling employee sexual harassment on Facebook from the victim’s perspective. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 20(1): 42–49.

66.

Scarduzio

Redden

Fletcher

(2021) Everyone’s “uncomfortable” but only some people report: privacy management, threshold levels, and reporting decisions stemming from coworker online sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research 49(1): 66–85.

67.

Scarduzio

Sheff

Smith

(2017) Coping and sexual harassment: how victims cope across multiple settings. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47(2): 327–340.

68.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

69.

Tenório

Bjørn

(2019) Online harassment in the workplace: the role of technology in labour law disputes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1(28): 293–315.

70.

Tracy

(2019) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

71.

Treem

Leonardi

(2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association 36(1): 143–189.

72.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2022) Sexual harassment. Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment

73.

Waizenegger

Schaedlich

Doolin

(2023) Sociomateriality in action: theorizing change in sociomaterial practices of working from home. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(3): 235–257.

74.

Wang

Hsieh

(2013) Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: a cross-level investigation. Human Relations 66(6): 783–802.

75.

Wilkinson

Gollan

Kalfa

, et al (2018) Voices unheard: employee voice in the new century. International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(5): 711–724.

76.

Zilber

(2022) Sarah Palin meeting “Zoom-bombed” with drawing of penis and vagina. The New York Post, 12 August. Available at: https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/sarah-palin-meeting-on-zoom-hit-by-pranksters-penis-drawing/

Behind the screen: The perception–reality gap in cybersexual harassment between remote coworkers

Abstract

Keywords

The prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace

The rise of cybersexual harassment in remote work

Technological affordances and perpetration of CSH

Technological affordances and reporting of CSH

Methods

Data collection

Data analysis

Findings

The role of affordances

Visibility and the perpetration of CSH

Persistence and reporting of CSH

Discussion

Theoretical implications

Pragmatic implications

Limitations and future research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References